Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Martinez v. Oddo

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

July 28, 2015

JORGE A. MARTINEZ, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN L. U. ODDO, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM

MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge.

Background

Jorge A. Martinez, an inmate presently confined at the Allenwood United States Penitentiary, White Deer, Pennsylvania (USP-Allenwood) filed this pro se habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Named as sole Respondent is Warden L. U. Oddo of USP-Allenwood. Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted for the sole purpose of the filing of this matter with this Court.

Petitioner, who was previously employed as an anesthesiologist, was convicted of 8 counts of distribution of controlled substances, 15 counts of mail fraud, 10 counts of wire fraud, 21 counts of health care fraud, and 2 counts of health care fraud resulting in the death of patients following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Martinez was subsequently sentenced on June 14, 2006 to serve a term of life imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See United States v. Martinez, 588 F.3d 301 (6th Cir. 2009).

Petitioner also previous sought relief with the sentencing court via a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 which was initiated in October 2011. See Doc. 2, p. 42. His action was dismissed by the district court on procedural grounds.[1] By decision dated May 29, 2015 the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied Martinez's application for a certificate of appealability. See id.

The Petitioner's pending action partially challenge his conviction. Martinez only seeks habeas corpus relief with respect to his convictions on two counts of health care fraud resulting in the death of patients. His petition claims that pursuant to the standards announced by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Burrage, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 881 (2014) he is actually and factually innocent of those two crimes. In Burrage, the Supreme Court in addressing a sentencing enhancement issue held that death only results from drug trafficking when the use of the controlled substance is the but for cause of the victim's death. It added that a penalty enhancement can only be applied if a jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim's use of a drug distributed by the defendant was a but for cause of death.

Martinez presently asserts that the two victims in his case died as a result of overdosing on illegal drugs "that this Movant did not prescribe to them." Doc. 2, p. 2. Therefore, he asserts that this § 2241 should be entertained because he is seeking relief based upon an intervening change in the law announced in Burrage.

Discussion

Habeas corpus petitions are subject to summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 ("Preliminary Review") of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (2004). See, e.g., Mutope v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 2007 WL 846559 *2 (M.D. Pa. March 19, 2007)(Kosik, J.). The provisions of Rule 4 are applicable to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b)). See, e.g., Patton v. Fenton, 491 F.Supp. 156, 158-59 (M.D. Pa. 1979).

Rule 4 provides in pertinent part: "If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner." A petition may be dismissed without review of an answer "when the petition is frivolous, or obviously lacking in merit, or where... the necessary facts can be determined from the petition itself...." Gorko v. Holt, 2005 WL 1138479 *1 (M.D. Pa. May 13, 2005)(McClure, J.)(quoting Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970).

Since he initiated his action before this Court, Petitioner is apparently arguing that he may bring his present claims of unconstitutional conviction and sentence via a § 2241 petition. It would appear that it is Martinez's contention that this Court has jurisdiction over his § 2241 action by virtue of his ongoing detention at USP-Allenwood.

When challenging the validity of a federal sentence and not its execution, [2] a federal prisoner is generally limited to seeking relief by way of a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997); Russell v. Martinez, 325 Fed.Appx. 45, 47 (3d Cir. 2009)("a section 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court is the presumptive means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence"). A challenge can only be brought under § 2241 if "it... appears that the remedy by [a § 2255] motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). This language in § 2255, known as the safety-valve clause, must be strictly construed. Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251; Russell, 325 Fed.Appx. at 47 (the safety valve "is extremely narrow and has been held to apply in unusual situations, such as those in which a prisoner has had no prior opportunity to challenge his conviction for a crime later deemed to be non-criminal by an intervening change in the law").

"It is the inefficacy of the remedy, not the personal inability to use it, that is determinative." Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). "Section 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because the sentencing court does not grant relief, the one-year statute of limitations has expired, or the petitioner is unable to meet the stringent gatekeeping requirements of the amended § 2255." Id. at 539. See also, Alexander v. Williamson, 324 Fed.Appx. 149, 151 (3d Cir. 2009).

Petitioner is clearly challenging the validity of his 2006 conviction and sentence which transpired in the Northern District of Ohio. Thus, he must do so by following the requirements of § 2255. As previously noted, Petitioner filed a direct appeal and a § 2255 action. However, both of those efforts were initiated prior to the 2014 Burrage decision. Moreover, there is no indication by Petitioner that he previously sought relief seek authorization from the appropriate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.